CVE-2026-54886
No source can show you its own past. This one can.
Print this page to keep the view as it stands on this date. Everything hidden behind a disclosure opens, and every receipt prints with its value.
SSH SFTP server denial of service via extended channel data infinite loop
rank 17 = 0 + 11 + 0 + 6 + 0
rank@v1 · backlog
Someone is already using it
CISA KEV catalog · public proof-of-concept · FIRST EPSS
EPSS 0.00331 · without this subject the record ranks 17
What it costs you if it fires
NVD CVSS base score, then the CNA's own
CVSS 4.3, from NVD · without this subject the record ranks 6
It is getting worse, not staying still
FIRST EPSS series, rescorings and bad loads removed
no persisting rise in 365 days · without this subject the record ranks 17
How much of the world it touches
NVD CPE configurations
6 products in the CPE ranges · without this subject the record ranks 11
Someone else already set the date
CISA KEV remediation due date
no CISA due date · without this subject the record ranks 17
$3,970 = $4.99M incident cost x 0.24048551839932833 exposure x 0.00331 likelihood
udv@v1 · unaudited · wrong for you until you say what you run
$4.99M is the cost of a breach that happened, from IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2026, global average. It is not the value of any asset of yours. That average already covers breaches of every severity, so scaling it by exposure understates a partial-impact record. That is an assumption, not a measurement. Your own asset value goes in the decision record.
Hindsight · the state
Foresight · where to check next
No weakness class or product neighbourhood is held for this record, so this index cannot name anywhere to check next. That is an absence in the record, not a finding about the software.
Sources disagree here.
Both shown, dated. We don't pick winners. disagreement-rules@v1
Running Erlang OTP? Check your version
A deterministic range check against the ranges this record publishes. It tells you where a version sits in the record, not whether your deployment is exploitable. No account needed.
Watch this record
Matches your own product list against every record this index holds, and tells you when one of them moves.
Set up a watchlist (needs a Practitioner account)
Record your call
Keep your verdict, your reason and the evidence together. The record takes its date when you save it.
AcceptDeferPatch by…Not affectedMitigatedChoose your verdict, then sign in or use an email link. Your first 100 records are free. Evidence is frozen when the record is created.
Private to your organization unless you share it. Put the proof link in your ticket so a reviewer can inspect the basis for your call. See how decision records work.
Harm, if it fires from the vector and the weakness
Written for the ticket you're about to file.
CISA KEV & Federal Remediation Deadline from the record and CISA
The fix, and how long it's been waiting.
Exploit Status & Known PoCs a ladder, not a score
Current rung: Nothing observed in held sources.
- RUNG 1Nothing observed in held sources
- RUNG 2Proof-of-concept published
- RUNG 3Exploited in the wild · CISA KEV listed
- RUNG 4Ransomware campaign use known
Affected & Fixed Versions as published
Show all 6 published ranges
A rung lights from a row in the index, never from an assessment. "Held sources" is the true scope of the claim: this index reads the CVE record, NVD, CISA KEV, FIRST's EPSS and public proof-of-concept repositories, and it does not observe attacks.
What it is stated by the CNA
Loop with Unreachable Exit Condition ('Infinite Loop') vulnerability in Erlang OTP ssh (ssh_sftpd module) allows an authenticated SFTP user to render an SFTP channel permanently unresponsive. The handle_data/4 function in ssh_sftpd contains a catch-all clause that accepts channel data of any type. When channel data with a non-zero type code (SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_EXTENDED_DATA) arrives with an empty pending buffer and a payload at or below the SFTP packet size limit, the clause tail-calls itself with identical arguments, creating an infinite loop. The SFTP protocol operates exclusively on normal channel data (type 0). receipt
Read the rest of the CNA's description
Extended data (non-zero type) is meaningless for SFTP and is never sent by conforming clients. However, the SSH protocol permits any channel participant to send extended data on an open channel, so an authenticated SFTP client can trigger the loop by sending SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_EXTENDED_DATA with any data_type_code and any non-empty payload at or below the size limit. The targeted ssh_sftpd process enters an infinite tail-recursive loop. It never processes another message, its message queue grows without bound, and it can only be stopped by killing the process. BEAM's reduction-based scheduler preemption continues to function, so other processes on the node are not starved, but each stuck channel process consumes its full CPU time share continuously and accumulates unbounded message queue memory. Opening many channels amplifies the CPU and memory impact. Erlang/OTP SSH configurations using the default max_channels setting (infinity) allow an authenticated user to open unlimited channels per connection, amplifying the attack without requiring multiple TCP connections or authentications. No file contents, credentials, or write access are obtainable through this issue. The impact is limited to denial of service on targeted SFTP channels, with secondary CPU degradation and memory growth. This vulnerability is associated with program file lib/ssh/src/ssh_sftpd.erl and program routine ssh_sftpd:handle_data/4. This issue affects OTP from OTP 17.0 before OTP 29.0.3, OTP 28.5.0.3 and OTP 27.3.4.14, corresponding to ssh from 3.0.1 before 6.0.2, 5.5.2.2 and 5.2.11.9.
NVD's analysis a second authority
- severity
- 4.3 CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
- weakness
- CWE-400; CWE-835
- affected versions
- erlang\/otp >= 17.0 < 27.3.4.14; erlang\/otp >= 28.0 < 28.5.0.3; erlang\/otp >= 29.0 < 29.0.3; and 3 more, listed in full below
- also scored by
- 5.3 CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
The CNA scored it 5.3 and NVD 4.3. Both are shown because both were published; we do not pick one.
check it yourself github.com cna.erlef.org osv.dev erlang.org github.com receipt
Movement the material steps
Show all 3 observations
3 observations held. A highlighted step crossed a promotion threshold. A step marked with a scoring model moved because the instrument was replaced, not because the vulnerability changed. receipt
The full biography
The record had been public for 22 days when this index was last written.
Siblings and hubs
Records related to this one
No record cites this identifier and it carries no alias. Its defect family is below.
Its defect family
erlang otp
Of the 5 records in this family, this is the only one holding a stated fix version: 6.0.2; 5.5.2.2; 5.2.11.9; 29.0.3; 28.5.0.3; 27.3.4.14.
Grouped by shared product and weakness, not by shared vulnerability. Each record's own state is on its own page.
Family membership: held values
This record is one of a group, and the group's page describes all of them. This page is kept and dated, and the defect family's own page is the one we offer for indexing: the whole group.
Browse the index from here
These are index-wide views, not findings about CVE-2026-54886.
What usually comes next
Everything above needs no account. What is below is work: assembling it, scoping it to your estate, watching it, and handing it to someone else.